You are not permitted to access the full text of articles.
If you have any questions about permissions,
please contact the Society.
νμλμ λ Όλ¬Έ μ΄μ© κΆνμ΄ μμ΅λλ€.
κΆν κ΄λ ¨ λ¬Έμλ ννλ‘ λΆν λλ¦½λλ€.
|[ Article ]|
|Seoul Journal of Economics - Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.539-559|
|ISSN: 1225-0279 (Print)|
|Print publication date 30 Nov 2020|
|Received 25 Sep 2020 Revised 15 Oct 2020 Accepted 15 Oct 2020|
|Entrepreneurship in the Context of Western vs. East Asian Economic Models|
Peter W. Heller
|Peter W. Heller, Executive Director, Canopus Foundation, Günterstalstr. 9A, D – 79102 Freiburg, Germany, Tel: +49 7612020172 (email@example.com)|
JEL Classification: P51
Recent developments in the global economy, notably the accelerating trade war between the US and China and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemia, have fuelled the debate which model of economic development, the Western or the East Asian one, is more competitive in a long term perspective. The intention of this paper is a brief investigation, based on historical and empirical research, into the role of entrepreneurship as a major factor of competitiveness and key driver of economic development in both models. International reports based on data of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index come to diverging conclusions which model might prevail. The paper outlines why the entrepreneurial dynamics in East Asia, particularly in China and Vietnam cannot be adequately captured by standards and rating systems based on the theoretical framework of liberal capitalism, as the historical, cultural and social factors of the East Asian model lie beyond its reach. However, the Western narrative envisages a determined course of history that economic progress will inevitably drag China and Vietnam on a trajectory towards the Western model. There is sound evidence that this will not happen.
|Keywords: Entrepreneurship, Economic Models, East Asia
I gratefully thank Prof. Vladimir Popov for his valuable comments on my draft paper, and the DOC Research Institute, Berlin for the meticulous editing of the manuscript, as well as one anonymous referee for useful comments.
|1.||Acs, Zoltan, Laszlo Szerb, and Erkko Autio (Eds.). The global entrepreneurship index. GEDI Institute, 2019. (https://thegedi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/GEI_2019_Final-1.pdf/)|
|2.||Ahlstrom, David, and Linda C. Wang. Entrepreneurial capitalism in East Asia: how history matters. In Landström, Hans, and Franz Lohrke (Eds.), Historical foundations of entrepreneurial research. Cheltenham (Elgar), 2010: 406-427.|
|3.||Baumol, William J. “Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory.” The American Economic Review 58 (No. 2 1968): 65-71. (Papers and Proceedings of the Eightieth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, May)|
|4.||Baumol, William J. “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive” Journal of Political Economy 98 (No. 5 1990): 893-921.
|5.||Blaug, Mark. “Entrepreneurship before and after Schumpeter.” Entrepreneurship: The social science view (2000): 76-88.|
|6.||Bosma, Niels et al. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/2020 Global Report, Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London Business School, 2020. (https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=50443/)|
|7.||Bröckling, Ulrich. The entrepreneurial self: Fabricating a new type of subject. Sage, 2016.
|8.||Ebner, Alexander. “Entrepreneurship and economic development.” Journal of Economic Studies 32 (No. 3 2005): 256-274.
|9.||Ebner, Alexander. Entrepreneurial state: The Schumpeterian theory of industrial policy and the East Asian “Miracle”. In Cantner, Uwe, Jean-Luc Gaffard, and Lionel Nesta (Eds.), Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation, Competition and Growth, Berlin-Heidelberg, Springer, 2009: 369-390.
|10.||[The] Economist. Robber barons, beware, (2015, October 22) (https://web.archive.org/web/20171213182557/https://www.economist.com/news/china/21676814-crackdown-corruption-has-spread-anxiety-among-chinas-business-elite-robber-barons-beware/)|
|11.||Faundez, Julio. “Douglass North’s theory of institutions: lessons for law and development.” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 8 (No. 2 2016): 373-419.
|12.||Godehardt, Nadine. “No end of history: a Chinese alternative concept of international order?” SWP Research Paper (No. 2 2016): 24.|
|13.||Hsieh, Chang-Tai, Chong-En Bai, and Zheng Michael Song. “Special Deals with Chinese Characteristics.” University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper 2019-74 (2019).|
|14.||Huang, Yasheng. Capitalism with Chinese characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the state. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
|15.||Li, Huaqun. “History and development of entrepreneurship in China.” Entrepreneurship and economic growth in China (2013): 13-33.
|16.||Mason, Colin, and Ross Brown. “Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship.” Final report to OECD, Paris 30 (No. 1 2014): 77-102.|
|17.||Mazzucato, Mariana. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, London, Anthem Press, 2013.|
|18.||Milanovic, Branko. Capitalism, alone: The future of the system that rules the world. Cambridge, Mass.-London, Harvard University Press, 2019.
|19.||North, Douglass C., and Robert Paul Thomas. The rise of the western world: A new economic history. Cambridge University Press, 1973.|
|20.||Popov, Vladimir. Mixed fortunes: An economic history of China, Russia, and the west. Oxford University Press, 2014.
|21.||Popov, Vladimir. “Which economic model is more competitive? The West and the South after the Covid-19 pandemic.” 2020. (unpublished manuscript)|
|22.||Reshetnikova, M. S. “Innovation and entrepreneurship in China.” European Research Studies Journal 21 (No. 3 2018): 506-515.
|23.||Schmoller, Gustav. Über einige Grundfragen des Rechts und der Volkswirthschaft. Jena, Verlag F. Mauke, 1875.|
|24.||Schwab, Klaus (Ed.). The Global Competitiveness Report 2019, World Economic Forum, 2019. (https://www.weforum.org/reports/how-to-end-a-decade-of-lost-productivity-growth/)|
|25.||Schumpeter, Joseph. A. Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung: Eine Untersuchung über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus. 2nd edn. Berlin, Duncker und Humblot, 1926.|
|26.||Schumpeter, Joseph. A. The Theory of Economic Development. New Brunswick-London, Transaction Publ., 1934.|
|27.||Schumpeter, Joseph. A. Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial History, Change and the Entrepreneur, 1949: 63 – 84. Reprinted in Clemence, R.V. (ed.) Essays of J. A. Schumpeter, Cambridge, Mass, Addison-Wesley, 1951: 248 – 266.|
|28.||Schumpeter, Joseph. A. People, Power and Profits, London, Allan Lane, 2019.|
|29.||Tomaszewski, Marek. “Corruption-A Dark Side of Entrepreneurship. Corruption and Innovations.” Prague Economic Papers 27 (No. 3 2018): 251-269.
|30.||Weber, Max. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Vol. 1. Univ of California Press, 1978.|
|31.||Zhang, Feng. “The Tianxia System: World Order in a Chinese Utopia.” China Heritage Quarterly 21 (March 2010) (http://www.chinaheritagequarterly.org/tien-hsia.php?searchterm=021_utopia.inc&issue=021/)|
|32.||Zhao, Tingyang. Can this ancient Chinese philosophy save us from global chaos? The Washington Post (February 8, 2018) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/02/07/tianxia/)|
|33.||Zhao, Tingyang. Alles unter dem Himmel. Frankfurt/M, suhrkamp stw, 2020.|
Editorial Office, Seoul Journal of Economics, Institute of Economic Research, Seoul National University 599 Gwanangno, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-746, Korea
Tel: +82-2-880-5434 | Fax: +82-2-888-4454 | E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright (c) 2020 SJE. All rights reserved.